Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Murad Khazbiev v. Federal Security Services

On Appeal Contracts Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    May 13, 2019
  • Outcome
    Law or Action Upheld
  • Case Number
    2а-929/2019
  • Region & Country
    Russian Federation, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    First Instance Court
  • Type of Law
    Administrative Law
  • Themes
    Content Regulation / Censorship
  • Tags
    Internet Shutdown

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

On May 13, 2019, the Magas District Court held that the Federal Security Services in Ingushetia acted lawfully when they restricted internet access on eight occasions, all of which coincided with peaceful protests. In October 2018, the government of Ingushetia, a Russian federal subject in the Caucasus, approved a land swap deal with Chechnya, which led to mass protests that continued for months. Internet operators began restricting internet access during protests. One protester filed a lawsuit against the Federal Security Services and the Ministry of Interior, alleging that they ordered the shutdowns and by doing so restricted his freedom of expression. The Federal Security Services conceded that they indeed ordered the shutdowns, but argued that their actions were lawful and aimed at to prevent terrorism. The Magas District Court agreed with the Security Services and ruled against the protester.

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression could not identify the official legal records. The information contained in this analysis was derived from secondary sources. It should be noted that media outlets may not provide complete information about this case. Additional information regarding this legal matter will be updated when an official source becomes available.


Facts

On September 26, 2018, the Republics of Chechnya and Ingushetia, Russian federal subjects, signed an agreement to exchange land along their borders. According to various reports, the exchange resulted in Ingushetia losing between five to ten percent of its total territory. The Ingush Parliament ratified the agreement and publicized it on October 4, 2018. The same day and for the following thirteen days, Ingush residents protested in Magas, Ingushetia’s capital, against the agreement.

On October 30, 2018, Ingushetia’s Highest Court declared that the land swap was illegal because the government failed to hold a referendum to ratify the land swap, as mandated by the Ingush Constitution. In November, a group of activists and opposition figures initiated the process to hold a referendum over the land swap. In March 2019, Ingushetia’s parliament proposed amendments to the law on referendums that would have removed the provision that mandated holding referendums on certain issues. After the news became public, a new wave of protests began.

During this first and second wave of protests, residents of Magas began experiencing internet shutdowns. At first, the shutdowns affected only mobile internet, but then expanded to wired connections.

On March 24, Mr. Murad Khazbiev, an individual who participated in the protests, filed a lawsuit against the Federal Security Services and the Ministry of Interior alleging that they ordered mobile internet shutdowns in June, October and November 2018, as well as in March 2019. He complained that the shutdowns generally occurred during peaceful protests, and restricted his right to express opinions about issues of public interest online.


Decision Overview

On May 13, 2019, the Magas District Court held a trial and ruled that internet shutdowns were lawful.

The Federal Security Services admitted that it ordered the internet shutdowns on eight occasions. The dates of the eight internet shutdowns coincided with peaceful protests in Magas.  Following the admission, the Ministry of Interior was removed as a defendant.

The Federal Security Services explained that it ordered restrictions to the internet to prevent “terrorist” and “diversionary activities.” The Security Agency qualified its actions under Section 3 of Article 64 of the Federal Law on Communication that obliged commercial and private entities to restrict access to the internet or other modes of communication upon receipt of a written request from law enforcement or security agencies.

The Magas District Court agreed with the arguments of the Federal Security Services and found that the shutdowns were legal.

Mr. Khazbiev will appeal the decision.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Contracts Expression

This case restricts freedom of expression, particularly during mass protests, by upholding the broad discretion of Russian security and law enforcement agencies to restrict access to online and other forms of communication. Broad internet shutdowns, not to mention when they are implemented during peaceful protests, violate the internationally accepted right to freedom of expression. In 2016, the UN Human Rights Council issued a resolution unequivocally condemning “measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law.” The judgment of the Magas District Court directly contravenes the Resolution and internationally accepted human rights principles.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback